SONA Q4 2015 Report | AIESEC in Malaysia

AIESEC in Malaysia

SONA 15/16

Q4 Report

introduction statistical information • All information in the current document refers to the timeframe between the 1st of October and the 31st of December of 2015, more commonly known as Quarter 4 (or Q4) of 2015.

• The information was provided by the 13 LCs through the AIESEC in Malaysia Q4 SONA Survey and also by the 9 SUs through the Q4 SONA for SUs Survey.

• Other information sources used in the present document: • LC XPP and Team Minimum trackers • National S&S Tracker • Monthly Finance Trackers

how is the information organized?

• The information was collected by functional area but is presented through broader organizational elements. This is because JDs are integrated in different roles from LC to LC (i.e., AIESEC in TU has a BD department whereas other LCs integrate it either in iGTP, MarComm or the LCP herself) and also because it gives you, the reader, a better big picture understanding of the state of AIESEC in Malaysia iregardless of what functional area you are currently allocated to.

• The elements are the following: • External Engagement (p.3-11) • Talent Capacity (p.12-17) + Outputs of AIESEC in Malaysia Member Survey (p. 18-23) • Sustainability (p.24-29) • Exchange Management (p.30-41) • Specialized Units (p.42-44)

how to capitalize on sOna to make my lc grow?

• You should not just read and think alone about the results; • All results should be discussed in EBs – the mindset should be “how can I improve” instead of justifying the reason why those are your results. If you justify you are not being constructive and you’re just deceiving yourself. This will not lead to growth.

• Each element should also be discussed by the teams in the functional areas which concern them. By doing this we are including all the members of AIESEC in Malaysia in the way we work in our LCs and in cultivating awareness towards the overall organizational reality.

external engagement UTM 23 (2%)

UNMC

CU

52 (4%)

53 (4%)

TU

UUM

124 (10%)

USM 96 (8%)

230 (18%)

SU

76 (6%)

# of applications for EP

UTP

340 (27%)

UKM 57 (5%)

UPM 78 (6%)

UM

74 (6%)

UMP 53 (4%)

1398 applications for am Q3 + Q4 = 1944 Applications

offline (67,7%)

online (32,3%)

3

external engagement UNMC 2 (3%)

UTM

7 (10%)

SU

UUM 5 (7%)

USM 6 (8%)

UTP

13 (18%)

12 (17%)

# of applications for EP

UKM 1 (1%)

80 applications for am Q3 + Q4 = 207 Applications

online (32,5%)

UPM

25 (35%)

offline (67,5%) 4

external engagement UTM 3

UTP 22

UMP 89

UNMC 317

431 applications for am Q3 + Q4 = 2462 Applications

# of applications for tmp

online (12,5%) offline (87,5%) 5

external engagement outcampus performance

UNIMAS UUM 16

13

UNIMAS

UMP

UTP

UNIMAS

UPM

80

2

UNMC

7

6

9

TU

USM

MA

3

4

17

UNMC

UUM

UTP UPM

43

6

UNIMAS UUM UTP 2

UNMC

TU

UNMC

242 outcampus gcp ep applications

23 outcampus members recruited

23 matches and 13 realizations

17,3% of total applications

2,7% of total membership

xxx% of total applications

RE

7

59

3

UPM 6

LC

operations in…

LC

operations in…

UMP

UMT, KPTM

TU

INTI(IICS), Taylor’s College S Hartamas

UKM

GMI, Segi Damansara

UNMC

LimKokWing, UTAR SL Campus

UTP

UPSI

UNIMAS

UCTS, Segi, UiTM

6

external engagement expansion LC

su target(s)

engagement

UUM

AIMST, Form 6 HS

-

UTP

UPSI, UiTM

UiTM- Meeting to be conducted on 1/9

UMP

UMT (Terengganu)

-

UKM

GMI

No positive outcome yet

TU

IICS, HELP

UNMC

UTeM (Melaka)

IICS - SU Development. Result - AIESEC approved by university admin HELP - SU Development. Result conducted outcampus recruitment in new market (Taylor's College Sri Hartamas) Heriot-Watt is now an SU

CU

UMS

UMS – letter sent to set up OCR

UNIMAS

SEGI, UCSI, Swinburne

Swinburne is now an SU

7

external engagement general indicators LC

# of media appearances

# of external events

# of partners

participation in external events

UUM

0 (-1)

1 (-4)

1 (-2)

0 (-2)

USM

0 (-1)

3 (+1)

3 (+3)

2

UTP

0

1

0

0

UMP

0

0

Instagram

0

0

UM

0

0 (-1)

Twitter, Blog, Instagram

0

0

UPM

0

3 (+2)

1 (-6)

3 (+2)

UKM

0 (-2)

5 (+3)

3 (+1)

5 (+5)

SU

0

0

0

0

TU

3 (+2)

5 (+5)

Instagram, Blog

8 (-1)

5 (-5)

UNMC

2 (+1)

4 (+4)

Blog

1

0

UTM

0

0

2 (+1)

0

CU

0 (-1)

1 (-1)

1

3 (+3)

UNIMAS

1 (+1)

1

0

1

social media activity

Instagram, Blog

* Values between parentheses depict absolute growth from last Q

8

external engagement facebook performance

0.48

UMP

1504 (+338)

127

0.08

UM

2898 (+396)

137

0.05

UPM

1467 (+108)

400

0.27

UKM

1541 (+191)

100

0.06

SU

1044 (+107)

49

0.05

TU

1088 (+217)

41

0.04

UNMC

1417 (+206)

337

0.24

UTM

1241 (+162)

30

0.02

CU

494 (+70)

0,73

0.001

UNIMAS

2239 (+367)

35

0.02

* Values between parentheses depict absolute growth from last Q

2000 1500 1000 500 0 UNIMAS

614

CU

1277 (+124)

UTM

UTP

2500

UNMC

0.06

TU

146

SU

2444 (+1716)

UKM

USM

3000

UPM

0.002

UM

4

UMP

1605 (+318)

3500

UTP

UUM

engagement rate

USM

# of Fb likes

UUM

LC

daily average of engaged people

# of FB Likes vs. Daily Average of engaged people

9

external engagement organizational health vs. performance

UTP

UPM

UM

TU UNMC UKM

UTM

CU USM UUM UNIMAS

SU

UMP

10

external engagement overall customized inferences LC

inferences

UUM

Can diversify online communication channels. Success of YouthSpeak Roadshow appeals to the potential in doing special physical events for oGCP promotion. General overall decline in external engagement indicators demonstrates that more effort was put on MRD as opposed to EPRD, which in turn demonstrates that more focused HR support for oGCP is needed.

USM

Great increase in Facebook engagement indicators can be sustained and leveraged for oGCP conversion. Increased number of external events have paid off in terms of oGCP growth. Number of partners has been doubled and can be utilized to co-drive LC events and overall on-campus brand perception.

UTP

Number of matches for oGCP was similar to previous term despite the fact that it is the LC with the highest # of applications for Q4 – support from MarComm should be explored in terms of how to implement strategies for Application-to-In Progess conversion.

UMP

Very low execution rate of physical promotion activities – LC should focus on rallying members to simply execute events.

UM

Has experienced one of the most significant growth in Facebook engagement – should now focus on managing quality and consistent content for the page instead of expanding.

UPM

Should engage whole LC to continue creating quality campaigns for Facebook, where the LC has seen one of the biggest engagement rates in AIESEC in Malaysia.

UKM

High increase in quantity of physical promotion touchpoints has not translated into a huge growth in applications – LC should consider reviewing Marketing strategies that were applied in Q4 and identify key improvement points to increase efficiency.

SU

Stagnated indicators in terms of physical promotion despite the fact that its where the LC gets most of its program applications – should focus on quantity in terms of external event creation and execution.

TU

Second LC with the highest application # for oGCP, although has low conversion rates to In Progress. MarComm should play a more active role in ideating and implementing strategies to support oGCP on conversion.

UNMC

Turned the tide on its Facebook engagement from the previous Quarter, should further explore growth in relevance of online communication channels by associating content with other in-campus organizations’ pages.

UTM

Low Facebook engagement calls for more request on support from national side (capitalize on Q4 LC Coach) to create most suitable campaigns for UTM’s student population. Should revitalize indicators in terms of physical event creation.

CU

Low penetration of online communication channels in campus translates into a need to innovate in terms of external events and partner involvement in physical promotion initiatives.

UNIMAS

Is not exploring its Facebook potential – has a high audience with low engagement. Should request aid in creating attractive campaigns that appeal directly to UNIMAS’ youth needs.

11

talent capacity TOTAL # OF LC MEMBERS

CU UNIMAS UUM 40 47

69

UTM

back office front (39,1%) office (60,9%)

USM 53

79

UTP 82

UNMC 89

UMP

highest front office weight

highest back office weight

UM

1. UM (69,6% vs. 30,4%) 2. SU (69,4% vs. 30,6%)

1. UTM (67% vs. 33%) 2. UNIMAS (57% vs. 43%)

45

TU

UPM

93

SU 72

UKM 63

56

72

am has 860 members increased by 222 since Q3

368 members (42,8%) attended induction during q4

12

talent capacity lc productivity LC

oGCP productivity

igtp productivity

igcp productivity

ogtp productivity

overall productivity

UUM

0.61

-

1

0.38

0.7

USM

1.6

0

0.82

0.33

0.91

UTP

1.1

0.08

0.5

0.14

0.63

UMP

0.3

-

0.75

-

0.53

UM

0.5

0.07

0.13

-

0.29

UPM

0.37

0.15

0.63

0

0.38

UKM

0.29

0.5

0.15

-

0.24

SU

1.78

0.16

0.05

0.14

0.64

TU

0.81

0.13

0.33

0.29

0.38

UNMC

0.21

0.14

1.25

0.16

0.52

UTM

0.77

0

1.07

0.07

0.57

CU

1.53

-

0.25

-

1.06

UNIMAS

0.7

-

0.38

-

0.55

National Productivity:

oGCP Productivity:

iGTP Productivity:

iGCP Productivity:

oGTP Productivity:

0,57

0,81

0,14

0,56

0,19

13

talent capacity team minimum fulfillment

83%

82,8%

87,5%

team

plan

jd

Increase from 76,8% in Q3 Most: UNMC, UNIMAS (100%) Least: UTP (63,2%)

Increase from 79,3% in Q3 Most: UNIMAS(100%) Least: UPM (58,8%)

Increase from 79,4% in Q3 Most: UM, UKM, CU, UNIMAS (100%) Least: UPM (63,6%)

76,2%

65,9%

51,8%

training

tracking & coaching

evaluation & reflection

Decrease from 79,5% in Q3 Most: UKM(100%) Least: UNIMAS (50%)

Increase from 53,1% in Q3 Most: UKM (85,7%) Least: UMP, UNIMAS (50%)

Increase from 49,4% in Q3 Most: UNMC (100%) Least: SU (16,7%)

14

talent capacity general indicators

membership retention 90,9% Q3: 93,4%

UPM 3

UUM 3

UNMC 102

113 Eps recruited as members

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

tlp positions vs. applicants National Average: 1,26 In Q3: 1,46

UTP

CU

7

7

UNMC 13

27 tmp on exchange

CU UTP

Total # of IXPs Â

153

1

1

UNMC 11

13 tlp on exchange

LC

# of total IXPs

1. UNMC

126

2. UTP

10

3. CU

8

15

talent capacity organizational health vs. performance

USM UNMC UM

UNIMAS

TU

CU

UUM UTP

UKM

UPM UMP

SU UTM

16

talent capacity overall customized inferences LC

inferences

UUM

Should seek MC and external support for implementation of Evaluation and Reflection Team Minimum.

USM

Exponential increase in Match efficiency from same Quarter last term reflected in good delivery of Team Minimums and higher number of internal trainings. Can allow itself to start integrating Internal Comms strategies for Team Minimum awareness and education and higher quality trainings by involving externals.

UTP

Lowest performing LC in terms of delivery on structural Team Minimum (Team). Low number of internal trainings for high number of LC members.

UMP

Should invest more on MEC implementation to improve number of trainings delivered for new members.

UM

Although overall Exchange performance has increased from same Quarter in the last year, growth rate has not reached the same levels as other LCs. LC should invest in involving membership with other LCs and supporting Team Leaders in terms of Team Management education.

UPM

Average low rates on Team Minimum fulfillment should be complimented with internal education and campaigns for both Team Leaders and Team Members.

UKM

Should invest more on MEC implementation and bringing in learning partners or externals to improve education and number of trainings delivered for new members.

SU

Good productivity from current members can be complemented with diversification of L&D strategies and allows for focus on LC upscalling through Spring MRD.

TU

Despite positive variation in Matches from Q4 of previous year, LC can still improve productivity as the LC with the most members in AIESEC in Malaysia.

UNMC

iGCP has consistently distinguished itself in terms of productivity and can share its project management model and training with the oGCP team.

UTM

HR structure heavily focused on back office, which does not support increase in experience quality for Exchange programmes. Should invest more on MEC implementation and bringing in learning partners or externals to improve education and number of trainings delivered for new members.

CU

Great productivity indicators, but LC needs to upscale its structure through spring MRD to support a continuous and long-term potential for growth.

UNIMAS

HR structure unbalanced with a high percentage of weight of back office areas. More allocations into front office are needed to support quality in experience delivery, especially for iGCP.

17

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs This Quarter’s SONA includes the output of the semesterly national member satisfaction survey of AIESEC in Malaysia. The objectives of the survey are to evaluate the experience of TMP/TLP for the past 6 months (July-December) and get the new insight and perspective about how members attach to the organization better in the future.

This survey was divided into 3 big areas to be reviewed and evaluated as the output, they are: 1. Clarity on current experience and predict the re-allocation evolution if it’s needed, # of % LC 2. Assessing the current team minimum implementation for responses contribution TMP & TLP, UUM 70 14,4% 3. National TMP/TLP evolution for the next 6 month ahead.

USM 63 13% Resource can be checked here : 1. Survey link : http://tiny.cc/AM2015MemberSurvey UTP 7 1,4% 2. Response link : click here Only 486 members filled up the survey. It’s 56,5 (%) from the total number of members of AIESEC in Malaysia (860).

Here is the current data from each LC, (Survey was closed on 1st of January 2016):

CU UTM UNMC

UUM UMP UPM

UMP

45

9,3%

UM

1

0,2%

UPM

58

11,9%

UKM

22

4,5%

SU

24

4,9%

TU

25

5,1%

UNMC

43

8,8%

UTM

75

15,4%

CU

41

8,4%

UNIMAS

12

2,5%

18

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs The respondents were dominated by TMP, new members, almost 49.4% from other respondents.

AIESEC in Malaysia has 5 layering on structure; - LCP - LCVP - Directors - Senior Executive - Junior Executive # of answers

% of total

Team Leader (in AIESEC for 1-5 months)

59

12,1%

Team Leader (in AIESEC for more than 6 months)

107

22%

Team Member (in AIESEC for 1-3 months)

240

Team Member (in AIESEC for 6 months)

35

Team Member (in AIESEC for more than 6 months)

45

role

We can’t count the % of back office and front office because we need to count overall from all LCs.

tmp (1-3 m)

49,4%

7,2% 9,3%

TM iGcp

marcomm ogcp

department

# of answers

% of total

TM

59

12,1%

FL

19

3,9%

MarComm

66

13,6%

BD/ER

3

0,6%

oGCP

126

25,9%

oGTP

22

4,5%

iGCP

128

26,3%

iGTP

44

9,1%

LCP

11

2,3%

Expansion

1

0,2%

SU

1

0,2%

SUVP

4

0,8%

19

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – satisfaction areas These 7 areas or issues represents team minimum implementation.

These people are those who are satisfied enough with their current experience in AIESEC. The top 3 reasons are personal development due to this experience, team experience and individual responsiblity.

However, education for the role is the lowest one. It is impacted by the layering that currently AIESEC in Malaysia has.

Education for the role is connected with training, tracking & coaching, evaluation and reflection.

Based on the this data, we realize that our LnD doens’t support for the layering. We need to review the education cycle in each of the layering, or shorten the layering to maximize the delivery of education.

We need to review the induction part, LEAD and LnD in each of experience. They felt satisfied with personal development, but we don’t much give support for ongoing education. area

# of answers

% of total

Clarity of AIESEC vision and your contribution towards it

146

42,4%

Living team experience

242

70,3%

Individual responsibility and goals

160

46,5%

Education for the role

47

13,7%

Support from AIESEC throughout XP

75

21,8%

Personal development due to this XP

291

84,6%

Professional Development due to this XP

154

44,8%

Lainnya

5

1,5%

0

100

200

300

400

20

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – improvement areas This is the suggested area that respondents expect to improve. Answers related to a scale from 1 to 7.

The top 3 are living team experience, individual responsibility and personal development due to this experience.

Looking at the data and reading the opinion from the respondents, the highligh of these improvement areas are: 1. Team, Plan and JD. For the structure of back office, many of them are not following the team minimum. And there are many unchallenging JDs, even based on the feedback, many overlapping JDs among LC (i.e.

Marketing & oGCP).

2. Not much Team Leaders know how to facilitate the team members under them. Another point is TLP engagement that was highlighted for the team experiences. That’s why tracking is okay but coaching is stuck.

3. Good point from the feedback is that TMP said that they don’t feel ownership towards the JD & KPI that they got because they never know or get the clarity on the planning processes.

area

# of answers

% of total

Clarity of AIESEC vision and your contribution towards it

52

36,6%

Living team experience

72

50,7%

Individual responsibility and goals

64

45,1%

Education for the role

55

38,7%

Support from AIESEC throughout XP

39

27,5%

Personal development due to this XP

59

41,5%

Professional Development due to this XP

57

40,1%

Lainnya

9

6,3%

0

20

40

60

80

21

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – next journey Are you continuing in AIESEC next term? # of answers

% of total

YES

334

68,7%

NO

152

31,3%

NO YES

What opportunities are you looking for in the next term? opportunity

# of answers

% of total

Leadership Positions (Directors/OCP in LC Level)

173

51,8%

Leadership Positions (Directors/Managers/EST in National Level)

68

20,4%

Organizing Committee Roles

139

41,6%

Exploring other Departments

123

36,8%

Facilitating Opportunities

157

47%

0

100

200 22

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – non-retention As usual, the biggest reason are university-related reasons (focusing on study and university graduation). More than 50% is the university study concern, however, there is an interesting point that we can see from the percentages; 11,2 % respondents think that they are low performing, that’s why they lost confidence to stay in AIESEC, and also demotivation is in 17,1% of the reasons.

From this point of view, exit interview, fire fighting experience and evaluation & reflection are important to be highlighted.

Exit interview is one of the methods that we can use to know the insight on how people’s experience in AIESEC and which part of our role as TLP can we improve in this area.

Not only that, but fire fighting is needed as well to make sure that they got the clarity and appreciation on what they did in AIESEC. And the last one is the space for TLP and TMP have a time to get evaluation and reflection on they JD and outer journey.

Why have you decided to leave AIESEC? REASon

# of answers

% of total

University Graduation

34

22,4%

Low Performance

17

11,2%

Demotivation

26

17,1%

Focusing on University Studies

82

53,9%

Studying Abroad

4

2,6%

Health Problem

7

4,6%

Financial Problem

10

6,6%

Working for another club/organization

25

16,4%

Lack of Family Support

10

6,6%

Lainnya

32

21,1%

23

sustainability payment times and financial health GCP TN Takers

EPs

LC

current net asset

cluster (Q4)

health (fcm)*

UUM

53,6 K

III

Over

National Average:

National Average:

USM

41,5 K

IV

Over

28,5 days

5,6 days

UTP

35,5 K

IV

Over

UMP

11 K

IV

Under

UM

42,4 K

IV

Over

UPM

59 K

IV

Over

UKM

42,5 K

IV

Over

SU

32,2 K

V

Over

TU

39 K

IV

Over

UNMC

95 K

IV

Over

UTM

16,3 K

IV

Under

CU

39,9 K

V

Over

UNIMAS

21,7 K

IV

Good

Last Quarter: 42 Days Best: UM (7 d) Worst: UUM (90 d)

Last Quarter: 3,7 Days Best: UUM (0 d) Worst: UTP, UMP (14 d)

GTP TN Takers

sponsors

National Average:

National Average:

17,4 days

18,7 days

Last Quarter: 14 Days Best: USM, SU (7 d) Worst: UKM, UNMC (30 d)

Last Quarter: 27,6 Days Best: USM (1 d) Worst: UMP, UKM, TU (30d)

* FCM = Finance Clustering Model

24

sustainability revenue and expenses LC

expenses (operations)

expenses (nonoperations)

revenue (exchange)

revenue (non-x)

UUM

12987.06 RM

14710.94 RM

15772.50 RM

1496.21 RM

USM

9111.18 RM

4435.35 RM

21050 RM

2975.30 RM

UTP

---

---

36900 RM

34.39 RM

UMP

2527.58 RM

1923.59 RM

9009 RM

480 RM

UM

1176.56 RM

8037.31 RM

9000 RM

1016 RM

UPM

4643.31 RM

2724.66 RM

9300 RM

600 RM

UKM

9927.06 RM

5107.63 RM

18723.11 RM

817.80 RM

SU

5097 RM

5091.09 RM

31100 RM

1801 RM

TU

2698.74 RM

9146.12 RM

14300 RM

3084.59 RM

UNMC

13956.36 RM

17357.26 RM

15300 RM

15211.38 RM

4222 RM

7300 RM

9435 RM

UTM

2455.87 RM

CU

1353.27 RM

2122.13 RM

23107 RM

50 RM

UNIMAS

6061.08 RM

7605.19 RM

13560 RM

1600 RM

non-x (14.7%)

exchange (85.3%)

revenue streams

non-ops (53.4%)

operations (46.6%)

cost structure

25

sustainability NAF LC

Reserves - dec

UPM

41

UTP

High income

q4 Profit/Loss

LC

36934.39

UTP

40

22712.91

SU

UUM

39

19681.660

CU

CU

39

10478.77

USM

UKM

35

10057.13

UTM

TU

24

5539.73

TU

UM

23

5037.83

UMP

USM

19

4506.22

UKM

SU

16

2532.03

UPM

UNMC

13**

1493.73

UNIMAS

UTM

9

802.13

UM

UMP

3

-802.24

UNMC

UNIMAS

2

-10429.29

UUM

Low income

26

sustainability incoming global citizen LC

income tn raising

income sponsors

income other

expenses transport

expenses accomm.

expenses food

expenses other

UUM

1272 RM

---

---

---

---

---

8471.21 RM

USM

3000 RM

---

---

---

5503 RM

---

698.30 RM

UTP

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

UMP

6309 RM

---

---

---

---

---

2399.98 RM

UM

400 RM

---

---

---

---

---

6.90 RM

UPM

2200 RM

---

---

---

---

---

1926.99 RM

UKM

12923.11 RM

---

---

---

---

---

9877.06 RM

SU

---

---

---

---

---

---

4200 RM

TU

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

UNMC

4200 RM

---

---

---

---

---

11392.55 RM

UTM

2100 RM

---

---

---

---

---

1313.72 RM

CU

1500 RM

---

---

---

---

---

1232.27 RM

UNIMAS

1860 RM

---

---

---

---

---

4682.08 RM

*Green = Program is self-sustainable; Yellow = Program is at or almost at a break-even point; Red = Program is currently unsustainable

27

sustainability organizational health vs. performance UPM TU SU

UKM

UTP

UM

CU

USM

UNIMAS

UNMC

UUM

UTM

UMP

28

sustainability overall customized inferences LC

inferences

UUM

Should not be discouraged by their loss last Quarter, as it still has a lot of investment power and so far the ROI has been consistently good, which reflects in the LC’s positive growth path.

USM

oGCP clearly distinguishes itself as the bread and butter of the LC – both investments and return can be heavily relied on this programme. Should consider investments on the Quality in Experience Delivery side to ensure long-term sustainability of programme.

UTP

Did not spend any money in Q4 (according to monthly Financial Survey), so should increase investment in operations and LC development to grow outgoing exchange and quality for incoming exchange.

UMP

Current financial health places a lot of pressure on obtaining partnerships/sponsors for iGCP sustainability. oGCP has the immediate task of becoming a cash cow for the LC so that recent growth in iGCP does not jeopardize its health.

UM

Displays overall average/stagnating indicators – in order to push itself out of this situation, should consider targetting its investment towards supporting one specific programme.

UPM

Is sitting on a lot of reserves that should be invested to drive more initiatives or projects. Investment on Exchange growth should be considered as LC is very close to jumping to a Cluster III entity.

UKM

Should intensify operations investments as extreme past growth rate has slowed down significantly during the past Quarter. Is sitting on a lot of reserves that can be applied to support operational growth.

SU

Continuous good financial health and jump into Cluster IV allows for more bold investments in Q1 for ROI in Q2.

TU

Has a lot of room for risk-taking in the investment arena. Has both financial and HR talent capacity to push oGCP growth and experience quality.

UNMC

Loss in Q4 is not highly consequential as it is connected to the very high growth in iGCP experiences delivered. Should tap into huge reserves for Investments focused on the oGCP side as this program needs to grow in order to support iGCP.

UTM

Financial investments should be fully targetted into bridging the gap between operational reality of oGCP and iGCP – oGCP needs to grow to ensure long-term sustainability of the LC.

CU

Should focus on drafting an investment plan to understand how it is going to reapply its huge income from oGCP back into operations to sustain growth and quality experiences.

UNIMAS

Financial health took a hit from iGCP growth in Q4. Securing project funding/sponsoring is essential to ensure longterm sustainability of LC.

exchange management global citizen outgoing

application

Conversion Rate:

28,3% Last Quarter: 31,3% Top: CU (66%) Bottom: TU (11%)

open/IP

Average # of days (App -> Open/IP):

11 days

Conversion Rate:

77,7% Last Quarter: 42% Top: UTM (92,3%) Bottom: UNMC (33,3%)

match

Average # of days (Open/IP -> MA):

15 days

Conversion Rate:

85,7%

realization

Last Quarter: 85,7% Top: UTP, UNIMAS(100%) Bottom: UTM (7,7%)

Average # of days (MA-> RE):

27,8 DAYS 30

exchange management global talent incoming

meeting

Conversion Rate:

41,1% Last Quarter: 11% Top: UNMC (83%) Bottom: USM (10%)

open

Conversion Rate:

Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):

17,4 days Last Quarter: 10,6 Days

33,3% Last Quarter: 40,1% Top: UTP (80%)

Bottom: USM, UM, UTM (0%)

match

Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):

Conversion Rate:

53,4%

82,1 days Last Quarter: 93,6 Days

Last Quarter: 33,9% Top: UPM (150%)

realization

Bottom: USM, UM, UTM (0%)

31

exchange management global citizen incoming

meeting

Conversion Rate:

42,1% Last Quarter: 53% Top: UNMC (100%) Bottom: SU, UKM (0%)

open

Conversion Rate:

Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):

13,8 days Last Quarter: 9,8 Days

40% Last Quarter: 66,1% Top: UTP, UNMC (100%) Bottom:

match

SU, UM(0%)

Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):

Conversion Rate:

63,1%

41,3 days 33,5 Last Quarter: 33,5 Days

Last Quarter: 91,1% Top: UUM, USM, UTP,

realization

UMP, UPM, UKM (100%) Bottom:

SU(5%)

32

exchange management global talent outgoing

application

Conversion Rate:

43% Last Quarter: 78,2% Top: UUM (160%) Bottom: USM (0%)

open/IP

Conversion Rate:

% of Podio applications from planned background:

48,8% # of people at Info Sessions:

9

27,1% Last Quarter: 0% Top: USM (67%) Bottom:

match

TU (0%)

Conversion Rate:

realization

# of people at selection meeting:

30 Average # of days (IP -> MA):

12,5%

54,9 days

Last Quarter: 100% Top: UTM (100%) Bottom: all other LCs running oGTP (0%)

Average # of days (MA –> RE):

27,1 days

33

exchange management 64,5% of Total iGTP

64,5% of Total iGTP

# of meetings for GE:

# of TN forms open for GE:

OPEN

MEETINGS

incoming global entrepreneur

60 19,5% of Goal Achieved

14 7,2% of Goal Achieved

80

50

70

40

60 50

Planned Meetings

40

Planned Open

30 20

30

Achieved Meetings

20 10 0

USM UTP

UM UPM UKM SU

TU UNMC UTM

Achieved Open

10 0 USM UTP UM UPM UKM SU

TU UNMC UTM UUM

34

exchange management incoming global entrepreneur MATCHES

64,5% of Total iGTP # of Matches for GE:

Q1 PROJECTION

2 Congratulations!

The first ever! (UKM)

Planned 113,3% Growth from last Q

Planned 278,6% Growth from last Q

Planned 2750% Growth from last Q

Planned Growth from 0 from last Q

Meetings

Open/IP

MA

RE

128

53

57

47

Planned Goals for GE Incoming for Q1

Planned for Q1

50 40

Meetings

30

IP

20

MA

10

RE

0 USM

UTP

UM

UPM

UKM

SU

UNMC

UTM

UUM

35

exchange management podio expertise National Average for oGCP:

UNIMAS

CU

7,8 / 10

UTM UNMC

Last Quarter: 7,5

TU SU

iGCP

UKM

iGTP

UPM

oGCP

UM

National Average for iGTP:

6,4 / 10 Last Quarter: 5,5

UMP National Average for iGCP:

UTP

USM

6,6 / 10

UUM 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Last Quarter: 5,9

36

exchange management value delivery indicators

OGCP IGTP

break match

break re

23

1

CU - 12

UPM - 1

6

1

USM, SU - 2

UKM - 1

igcp

igcp

27

92%

EPs went on a border run for VISA extensions.

EPs had full preparation for the experience.

igCp

IGCP

OGTP

10

0

UMP - 5

3

1

UUM, TU, UNMC - 1

UUM - 1

igTp

122

7

LC buddies were recruited for the EPs.

Re-Raises with previous TN takers.

37

exchange management lead for eps implementation

69,7%

Last Quarter: 39,9%

Last Quarter: 45,4%

Top Implementer: UMP, CU (100%)

Top Implementer: UNMC (80%)

Focuses for Q1: Realized (9 LCs) Matched (3 LCs) Complete (1 LC)

37,4%

IgTp

Ogcp lead flow

Top Implementer: SU (60%)

Top Implementer: UUM, UKM, TU (100%)

igcp

Focuses for Q4: Realized (9 LCs) Matched (4 LCs)

lead flow

lead flow Last Quarter: 18,4%

Last Quarter: 59,6%

76,3%

Focuses for Q4: Matched (6 LCs) In Progress (2 LCs) Realized (1 LC)

18,4%

Focuses for Q4: Matched (5 LCs) Application, IP, Reintegration (1 LC each)

OgTp lead flow 38

exchange management overall performance app/ meeting

open/IP

match

realize

OGCP

1398

369 +16,8%

261

+536,6%

63

-17,1%

IGTP

63

33

-66%

17

+1600%

8

+60%

IGCP

17

341

177

48

OGTP

80

+110,5%

+470,1%

+33,3%

40

13

1

+122,2%

+550%

-80%

*values below final results represent growth or decrease from q4 of 2014

39

exchange management organizational health vs. performance

UNMC

UKM

UUM

TU SU

UPM UM

CU

USM

UNIMAS

UTP UMP

UTM

40

exchange management overall customized inferences LC

inferences

UUM

Should push on LEAD flow implementation for oGTP to avoid more Breaks in RE. Revival of iGTP department for 16/17 is totally possible through investment in Global Entrepreneur as a programme.

USM

Should continue rigid selection process for oGCP (2nd LC with highest number of rejections at selection, since it has reflected into 0 Break MAs and REs.

UTP

Highest average number of days of conversion from IP to MA suggests investment in conversion strategies (TN Sales for Raised EPs, guidance from EP Buddy and deadline setting). Biggest oGCP department in Malaysia needs to be reflected by a better and more intense education from TM side to promote Matching, as LC is approaching its RE peak in Q1.

UMP

Should focus iGCP department on quality strategies for already MA and RE EPs and then focus both LC and oGCP teams on driving Summer Peak upscalling for Global Citizen Outgoing through application and application-to-In Progress conversion strategies.

UM

Big discrepancy between number of meetings for iGCP and number of Opened Forms suggests more education on Sales, Negotiation and Deal Closing is needed for iGCP team. Investment in quality strategies for iGCP is needed, as reflected in the low LEAD implementation rate.

UPM

Has not been following up on high goals for Incoming Global Entrepreneur, and therefore LC should review if the program is really being supported by proper HR and financial resource allocation and number of initiatives.

UKM

Should invest on LEAD flow implementation for iGTP to sustain program growth. Incoming Global Entrepreneur pioneering success has potential for growth with further investments from LC.

SU

Highest number of Re-Raised in Malaysia for iGTP suggests that good partnership management strategies and upscalling existing TN takers is a good investment.

TU

Should consult MC and external context to review strategies and understand how to improve oGCP application-to-In Progress conversion rate. Performance has not reached high levels of LC health yet (abundance of HR and financial resources).

UNMC

High number of expected REs for iGCP for Q1 has to be reflected in targetting quality strategies (i.e., someone to manage and coordinate the 27 recruited EP Buddies for a more effective servicing strategy).

UTM

Very low implementation rate of LEAD for oGCP, should really consider enforcing quality standards in strategies from oGCP team.

LC is at danger of falling back into Cluster V if it does not map out how to grow in oGCP for Summer Peak.

CU

Very high level of Break Matches in oGCP would suggest that a more rigid selection should be made for EPs to filter out individuals with not the right motivations. Can allow itself to start figuring out brand advocacy strategies for oGCP EPs realized in Q4.

UNIMAS

Imperative to start investing resources into iGCP quality strategies. Should insist on Podio Management education for iGCP.

specialized units performance & health indicators

swinburne 7 uthm UNIMAP hw 16 17

7

inti 5 help 16

138 su members 16% of AM membership

USMEC 30

Pekan UTAr 24

back office (38,4%) front office (61,6%)

16

# of applications for GLP

# of applications for GCP EP

swinburne

UNIMAP

UTHM

12

heriot -watt 44

16

UNIMAP

24

PEKAN 36

21,3% of AM Total

54

heriot-watt 27

Utar 18

INTI 24

help 15

pekan 11

exchange performance Su

Open /IP

MA

RE

UNIMAP

15

6

0

OGCP

USMEC

11

9

1

11

11

0

OGCP iGCP

3

1

2

OgCP

10

10

0

iGCP

UMP Pekan

0

0

0

OGCP

HELP

3

1

1

OGCP

INTI

2

0

0

OGCP

Heriot-Watt

9

2

1

OGCP

UTHM

0

6

0

11

11

5

OGCP iGCP

5

4

4

OGCP

UTAR

Swinburne 13,8% of AM Total

42

specialized units organizational health vs. performance

UTAR unimap

help

USMEC UTHM

swinburne heriot-w pekan inti

43

specialized units overall customized inferences LC

inferences

UNIMAP

Should focus on conversion strategies from Application to In Progress to leverage on higher number of GCP applications. Should improve on SUEB KPI tracking.

USMEC

MarComm strategies should focus on Brand Advocacy to capitalize on EP experience showcasing to improve brand positioning in an otherwise saturated market. High productivity in iGCP allows for focus in experience quality (LEAD delivery) and maintaining and upscaling current TN takers.

UTAR

Transition into LC status needs to be accompanied by more intense resource allocation into oGCP to ensure financial sustainability. HR structure is currently not optimized to support focus on oGCP.

UMP PEKAN

Capitalize on UMP administration move to Pekan campus to improve university relations and support. Need to overcome the mindset of giving up on winter peak despite the lack of 6 weeks holidays.

HELP

Host LC needs to focus on L&D and ensure implementation of MEC to improve extremely low productivity rates.

INTI

Home LC needs to apply resources (especially in terms of HR) at INTI to ensure SU reaches a level of capacity of self-sustaining operations. Education on CoW for current members is necessary to increase oGCP productivity.

HERIOTWATT

Can implement self-made experience showcasing with the 2 Matched EPs in Q4 to improve brand awareness and perception. Self-manage spring MRD to improve Talent Capacity for Summer.

UTHM

Positive productivity and performance on iGCP side. Room for improvement in oGCP, which should be the Q1 driving focus. Start by seeking out how to focus back office areas into supporting oGCP delivery.

SWINBURNE

Continue positive focus on oGCP operations. Reintegration strategies are key in ensuring good SU health and future performance.

44